ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Development and Validation of EsoTIME, a Prognostication Tool for Resected Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Cancer.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrognostication tools offer a way to combine diverse information and inform personalized survival predictions for patients and their providers. A review of tools aimed at prognostication for patients with esophagus and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers undergoing surgery did not identify many high-quality tools that may be used.
methodsThis study developed and externally validated a prognostic model to estimate the probability of dying within 3 years of surgery for patients with resected esophageal or GEJ cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2016, followed to 2020. We used population-based administrative health and pathology data in Ontario (development) and Manitoba (external validation) from cancer registries, physician billing data, and hospitalization records. Predictor variables included patient (e.g., age, sex), disease (tumor stage, lymph node status), treatment (e.g., extent of surgery, receipt of radiation), and pathology factors (e.g., lymphovascular invasion). Bootstrapped calibration-in-the-large and time-varying area under the curve (AUC) statistics were estimated.
resultsModel development included 2124 patients from Ontario. External model validation included 318 patients from Manitoba. Internal validation demonstrated a calibration plot slope of 1.02, intercept of - 0.01, and AUC of 0.77. In comparison, the external validation reported a calibration plot slope of 1.11, intercept of 0.005, and AUC of 0.73. These results were robust across patient characteristics (e.g., age, sex, income), disease histology, and primary tumor location.
conclusionOur model demonstrated accurate prognostic capability and may be suitable for application in real-world clinical care. Development of a web-based interface and supporting documentation for communicating risk to personalize prognosis for patients or facilitate shared decision-making is under way.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41139180What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.